If it is with Internal Focus and don`t get bigger when im zooming. Then this is a one i want very much

I am afraid that in that case the size will be rather big. Just compare the size of a 200/2.8 against the size of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom or, even worse, think 100-400 fully extended!

Exactly. But in this case, I suspect Heidrun will be disappointed. Even though the CR2 rumor is for a ring zoom rather than push-pull, the 100-400mm patents (both the new ones) indicate an extending zoom.

I'm glad - one of the great features of the current 100-400mm is its 'compact' (relative to the 400/5.6, at least) storage size. That means it fits nicely in a bag that can also hold a 70-200/2.8 zoom - convenient! For me, if it's an internal zoom, meaning a lens about as long as the current 100-400mm when extended, it will not be of interest to me at all. Fortunately, that's unlikely based on the patents. I expect the physical design to be reminiscent of the newish 70-300mm zoom (white extending barrel).

If it is with Internal Focus and don`t get bigger when im zooming. Then this is a one i want very much

I am afraid that in that case the size will be rather big. Just compare the size of a 200/2.8 against the size of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom or, even worse, think 100-400 fully extended!

For me, if it's an internal zoom, meaning a lens about as long as the current 100-400mm when extended, it will not be of interest to me at all. Fortunately, that's unlikely based on the patents. I expect the physical design to be reminiscent of the newish 70-300mm zoom (white extending barrel).

Like you, I expect a similarly designed lens. White barrel, black ring around the end, smaller white barrel extending tube.

If only its price was compact too... Back in the good old days when an updated lens was introduced at about the same or at a just higher price, one could find the older versions for less. Now when Canon introduces newer versions the prices are so higher that some might consider themselves lucky to find the previous model.

I was curious re the filter size. Firstly, I have no idea re lens design, I loved the article on this site about it but beyond reading that I have no clue so this is just ramblings The filter side normally relates roughly to the front element size but a increase in filter size could just be to reduce vignetting from the filters rather than specifically a larger front element. I picked two lenses and compared the filter size between manufactures. All 35mm full frame lenses.

I tend to highly doubt it is to reduce filter vignetting on such a long focal length lens.

If it is with Internal Focus and don`t get bigger when im zooming. Then this is a one i want very much

I am afraid that in that case the size will be rather big. Just compare the size of a 200/2.8 against the size of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom or, even worse, think 100-400 fully extended!

Exactly. But in this case, I suspect Heidrun will be disappointed. Even though the CR2 rumor is for a ring zoom rather than push-pull, the 100-400mm patents (both the new ones) indicate an extending zoom.

I'm glad - one of the great features of the current 100-400mm is its 'compact' (relative to the 400/5.6, at least) storage size. That means it fits nicely in a bag that can also hold a 70-200/2.8 zoom - convenient! For me, if it's an internal zoom, meaning a lens about as long as the current 100-400mm when extended, it will not be of interest to me at all. Fortunately, that's unlikely based on the patents. I expect the physical design to be reminiscent of the newish 70-300mm zoom (white extending barrel).

The original 100-300L (push-pull) wasn't any shorter when at minimum setting than the new 70-300L (twist) from what I recall (of course true 70mm vs 100m). A twist zoom can be external zoom or internal zooming.

The original 100-300L (push-pull) wasn't any shorter when at minimum setting than the new 70-300L (twist) from what I recall (of course true 70mm vs 100m).

I didn't even know there was a 100-300mm f/5.6L! What an odd lens - looks like Canon took the consumer-grade 100-300mm f/5.6 (which is different than the newer 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM lens), and simply added L-level optical elements and a red ring, otherwise keeping the same consumer level build.

Of course it can. But in this case, the 100-400mm patent specifies: Lens Length 228.18 â€“ 288.12mm, which clearly indicates an extending design. FWIW, the retracted length is about 1.5" longer than the current 100-400mm, which is going to be a pain in the butt (for me), as it means the new 100-400mm will likely not fit in a Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW or similar cases.

The original 100-300L (push-pull) wasn't any shorter when at minimum setting than the new 70-300L (twist) from what I recall (of course true 70mm vs 100m).

I didn't even know there was a 100-300mm f/5.6L! What an odd lens - looks like Canon took the consumer-grade 100-300mm f/5.6 (which is different than the newer 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM lens), and simply added L-level optical elements and a red ring, otherwise keeping the same consumer level build.

yup, that pretty much sums it up

people called it the Meat Grinder

slow and very, very noisy non-USM AF

It was my first L lens, I thinkit sold for like $900 or so new when it came out. I got one for about $300 used back in 2005 or 2006.

One thing it managed was having excellent large scale contrast at 300mm, something that none of the rest ever managed until the Tamron VC and the new 70-300L. Although it had the contrast at 300mm I don't think it had the sharpness of the new L at that long end. The lack of IS was a bit troublesome, the slow and noisy AF not so hot and the f/5.6 even at 100mm a bit rough though. The fluorite element in it, for a long time, had it far an away the best super-compact 300mm quality you could get. I eventually traded it away for 70-300 IS since I decided a bit faster AF and IS just managed to outdo the lesser 300mm large scale contrast. The new 70-300L means no compromises either way, it's definitely better than either of the lens (and tamron) in pretty much every last way.

From what I recall the 100-300L had a similar optical design to the 100-400L, although the IS in the 100-400L meant for some differences in the formula. The MTF charts, I believe, were incredibly similar. The 100-400L was sort of a scaled up version that was allowed to be variable aperture and had IS and modern L build added in.

Logged

Heidrun

The more i think about it. The more i think this. If they instead of 100-400 produce a zoom with 200-500 f.5,6 L is. Because now i just put a 2 X converter on my 70-200 f.2,8 L is mk II. So the 100-400 is in the middle of nowhere for me

The 'old' 100-300mm f5.6 and 100-300mm f5.6 L were 'decent' for their day, with the L receiving good compliments for raw optical quality. However the focus (slow, noisy) was often complained about. Their size meant that it was handy as a travel zoom also. I think the current 100-400mm L is quite different in most aspects to the above two lenses, though certainly some optical aspects could have been carried across (the 100-400 having variable aperture, IS, 100mm extra, much longer lens housing, etc.)

The 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM improved the focus on both 100-300mm f5.6 lenses, but sadly is lacking in IS - and the optical quality at the long end left more to be desired, especially wide open (not very sharp, and very low contrast). I bought this lens (my first 'tele zoom' lens) - and knowing it's limitations, I was able to get a lot of good photos (eg stopping down between f8 and f11, and using some clever post processing). It has great AF (fast and accurate), good build quality and is of a convenient size.

When I stepped up to the 70-300mm f4-5.6 L USM IS there was an improvement in every area over the 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM (except for size, weight and price)! That is:

the usefulness of the IS can't be overstated for many applications (eg wildlife)

the AF is even quicker and I'd say a touch more consistent / accurate

build quality is 'tank like' (solid, super smooth focus and zoom rings, and FWIW I prefer the focus ring closer to the camera body, and the zoom further away - I know some other people differ)

much reduced CA (the 100-300mm had lots of noticeable purple CA at the tele end)

faster aperture and retained longer in the zoom range (it's almost like a 70-200mm f4 IS with an extra 100mm)

30mm more zoom range on the wide end

(and this is the most important one to me) - a huge increase in optical quality at 300mm f5.6, where from corner to corner its super sharp and has lots of contrast.

I hope that any replacement to the Canon 100-400mm L would take the above good qualities of the Canon 70-300mm L, and apply them - to be a popular lens for many photographers. To me, it's going to be 'too big' as a tele-zoom travel lens, and not really long enough for the 'super serious' birding. The alleged price (of $2800 USD) is a considerable jump from the $1600 for the 70-300mm L.... Certainly though, many people will be prepared to pay for it, if it delivers the goods (look at how popular the 70-200mm f2.8 II is!)

Paul

Logged

I'm not a brand-fanatic. What I do appreciate is using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

I was curious re the filter size. Firstly, I have no idea re lens design, I loved the article on this site about it but beyond reading that I have no clue so this is just ramblings The filter side normally relates roughly to the front element size but a increase in filter size could just be to reduce vignetting from the filters rather than specifically a larger front element. I picked two lenses and compared the filter size between manufactures. All 35mm full frame lenses.

I tend to highly doubt it is to reduce filter vignetting on such a long focal length lens.

Very true, it would only potentially be at the 100mm end, but that's something like a 23 degree fov. I guess its just to improve overall iq and reduce normal vignetting wide open.